Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The next bylaw will ban irony

157 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

  • BenWilson,

    I don't think we're disagreeing much now Steve. If we can agree that the right to freedom of speech is not paramount, much less absolute, then all we're discussing is the extent to which a council could breach that right wrt items of clothing in their patch. I think it's a weak expression of a weak right being overridden by a weak justification that probably will not work. To that extent I think it shouldn't be done, but I'm not heartbroken. The only thing that comes through strongly in this affair is that Whanganui doesn't know how to solve it's gang problem, and it has a dick for a mayor.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8499 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    The only thing that comes through strongly in this affair is that Whanganui doesn't know how to solve it's gang problem, and it has a dick for a mayor.

    It also show that they, and local Police, are either dangerously naive or wilfully disingenuous if they believe this by-law is going to even begin to "stop gang intimidation".

    Would be it out of order to remind folks that that a two-year old called Jhia Te Tua WASN'T MURDERED WITH A SCRAP OF EMBROIDERED FABRIC?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11931 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    It also show that they, and local Police, are either dangerously naive or wilfully disingenuous if they believe this by-law is going to even begin to "stop gang intimidation".

    On the flipside, they'll find out soon enough, so at least the debate can end and the question of the mayor being a dick can be settled.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8499 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    I don't think we're disagreeing much now Steve. If we can agree that the right to freedom of speech is not paramount, much less absolute,

    Well, I don't believe in absolute rights, so I agree that far. Whether it's paramount or not depends on what you mean; it is paramount in most cases - that's why we put it in an Act. If we override it for the specious reasons given in this case, it seems pointless having it in the bill at all.

    ...then all we're discussing is the extent to which a council could breach that right wrt items of clothing in their patch. I think it's a weak expression of a weak right being overridden by a weak justification...

    There's the problem with a blasé attitude to freedom of expression: if it is a weak right, as you still seem to be maintaining, why would you need more than a weak justification to override it?

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1146 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    There's the problem with a blasé attitude to freedom of expression: if it is a weak right, as you still seem to be maintaining, why would you need more than a weak justification to override it?

    You don't. That's why it gets overridden all the time. The 'freedom to express anything you like' is akin to the 'freedom to do anything you like'. Which is one of our much cherished freedoms, caveated only by the entire volume of laws our nation has saying just exactly what it is you are not allowed to do. But, if it's not in there, then you're allowed. Unless we change our minds, as we do every single day.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8499 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    The Herald's latest online poll poses the conundrum: Michael Lhaws, "voice of reason" or "obnoxious ranter".

    It says much about those who vote (and inhabit the parallel universe of the Your Views section) that the vote is running 72% in favour of our man's rationality and impending sainthood.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    Because Lhaws tells it like it is, and doesn't put up this with any of this PC nonsense!

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1146 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    He's no nannying nancy.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    if it is a weak right, as you still seem to be maintaining, why would you need more than a weak justification to override it?

    You don't.

    So why criticse even to the limited degree that you have here? A weak justification is required, and one was supplied – you have no cause for criticism. Indeed, it’s hard to see how you could complain at almost any infringement of your right to free expression, as long as the authorities gave some lame excuse.

    That's why it gets overridden all the time.

    I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at. If you are saying there are many specific instances of someone not being able to express themselves perfectly freely, there are endlessly more examples of people saying what they want, unimpeded by the state. The key issue is whether we intend freedom of expression to be one of those important rights, fundamental to good liberal-democracy, that we treat with extra care. Obviously we do, as we put it in an Act.

    The 'freedom to express anything you like' is akin to the 'freedom to do anything you like'.Which is one of our much cherished freedoms, caveated only by the entire volume of laws our nation has saying just exactly what it is you are not allowed to do. But, if it's not in there, then you're allowed. Unless we change our minds, as we do every single day.

    You're confusing two different types of principals. The freedom to do anything you like is, as you say, just another way of expressing the principal that if something is not expressly baned in the law, one can assume that it is a legal act. That's too broad to be considered a "right" as we're discussing here. And I should hope we don’t change our minds on what we are legally allowed to do every day - a society that capricious would be a real pain to live in!

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1146 posts Report Reply

  • ChrisW,

    You're confusing two different types of principals.

    Hard News: The next bylaw will ban irony

    Best I get in now then.

    Gisborne • Since Apr 2009 • 833 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    principals

    It's aggravating me, above any of the content, that this is being spelt wrong in a discussion about rights. Schools have principals.

    I get similarly up and arms when Dungeon and Dragon geeks write along the lines of "Sir Arthur took up his horse's reigns..."

    Umm, as you were.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6165 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    Ugh, sorry - yeah I know the difference. I sometimes catch myself making that mistake and fix it in my proof read, and sometimes not. No edit button and all.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1146 posts Report Reply

  • ChrisW,

    Princely pals, ples continue the conversation - or shall I at least provide positive encouragement by donating a pendant.

    Pals are obvious, tangible, you can shake hands with them, but the principal reason they're at the top of the pyramid is that they think they're important.

    Ples note that the plesure in principles is intangible but not shameful. They may be unobvious, but principles being the foundation at the base of the pyramid means they really are important.

    Gisborne • Since Apr 2009 • 833 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    principles ... they really are important.

    At least Chris agrees with me, then, Chris.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1146 posts Report Reply

  • ChrisW,

    At least Chris agrees with me, then

    At least in principle ...

    Gisborne • Since Apr 2009 • 833 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    And where would we be without another piece of populist fatuity from the keyboard of Chris Trotter?

    And in the comments, our friend Tom Semmens lashed we "guilty white liberals" who, I guess, drive past Struggle Street on our way to lattes and organic brioche on Ponce-on-by Road...

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11931 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    Jeez. It seems like everywhere I go on the NZ internet, Tom pops up to give us all what-for. What made him Mr Angrypants?

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3653 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    What made him Mr Angrypants?

    Not like I need the competition. :) Anyway, I was tempted to get all "more working class than thou" on Messers Semmens and Trotter, but I've got three PAR pieces to finish and polish up today for recording tomorrow, so time focus on the paid work rather than my usual strategy of pulling a rabbit out of my arse at the last possible moment. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11931 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie,

    I know one of your themes is the need for the left to disconnect from (to use the blogsphere) Public Address and reconnect with... well, people who don't have the time to blog from a nice office job.

    Heh. Whatever else he may be, Mr. Semmens certainly isn't psychic.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 3468 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I like the irony of Comrade Semmens crying "first" on behalf of the keyboardless masses.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed,

    And it looks like the kind of people favouring the gang patch ban are also the same kind of people lambasting hate-speech law as thought crime. Even the Maxims think the gang patch law is ineffectual.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4258 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Heh. Whatever else he may be, Mr. Semmens certainly isn't psychic.

    Still, its rather nice being called a 'guilty white liberal' or Russell's neutered faux-Tory lapdog instead of a shameless white right-wing shit bag. (BTW, I was too busy laughing to be offended at being accused of unprincipled populism by someone whose major contribution to on-line political discourse was photoshopping Helen Clark's head onto she-male porn.)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11931 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    [Tom Semmens, on Trotters blog]: I get the feeling many guilt ridden urban liberals would rather delude themselves gangs are noble savages...

    Who are all these deluded guilt ridden liberals who think gangs are noble? Is it you, Craig?

    I'll come right out and say it, and obviously put myself off side with all you out of touch PAS urban liberals, but... I don't think gangs are a good thing. There, I said it. Controversial I know.

    Seriously, I think Tom's concern that we are somehow supporting gangs per se is misplaced. The point of a pro-civil liberties stance is to say these liberties should be apply even to those we don't like very much. I'm reminded of that Chomsky quote that Craig cited the other day: "If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at".

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1146 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I don't think people have to love gangs to believe that "First they came for.." actually means something. Trotter's reference to WW2 history seems to ignore that part of its lessons.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    (BTW, I was too busy laughing to be offended at being accused of unprincipled populism by someone whose major contribution to on-line political discourse was photoshopping Helen Clark's head onto she-male porn.)

    Once a slimey little arsewipe, always etc.

    I hope you purged yourself with something strong after having words with both Clint and Redbaiter within a 24 hour period Craig.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6165 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.